Matt Cutts and the paid links

Google is obviously tired of money going into the pockets of others with the intent to rank in their search engine. I can see how it upsets them, especially when it lowers the overall quality of search results.
But this report tool is highly unlikely going to make positive changes. Rather the opposite I believe. Especially since there are so many high profile link buyers and sellers which Google employees know in person and don't go after.
So more or less this appears like a game to me. Unfortunately it will dominate many topics on webmaster forums and many newcomers will have similar questions and get the same answers.

Google is a lot more advanced than they admit to IMO. Why then we are needed to report those who pay for links to manipulate rankings is something I don't get. Seems more like a playground for people who want to do something to feel like they are making a positive difference when in reality their action or non action would provide pretty much the very same result.



Mike

 

Agreed. Cutts wants to test G's new algo for detecting sites that sell links. Common sense says that directories are not the current target. You don't need an algo to know that directories sell links. You only need to check a submit page.

IMO sites that use third parties to broker deals are the target. These sites don't advertise 'links for sale' anywhere, and are probably highly trusted and probably have PR of 6+. There are a good number of .edu and authority sites selling links for PR and trust. I think that is what G is trying to zero in on and put and end to.

/*tom*/

 

I agree. Goole BORES me. Hey Matt, what about something that you should REALLY be concerned of-Your new search results SUCK!

 

I couldn't agree more Mike and why shouldn't they put a stop on that market? The only thing I consider wrong is how it will effect the good people who provide reliable services that are going to get caught up in this mess, some of which are members here.

 

Man you said it! They new results for my industries have been just horrible for about the last two months. I really think that Google is trying to rule the world even more than they currently do. If you combine the You Tube purchase and personalized search on top of this, it would appear that they are making a attempt at having everyone assimilate to the BORG.

Very creepy.

 

Or for a push for everyone to use adwords/adsense to bring in more money to Googleolopy to make up the difference they used in their most recent investments.

Use Googleolopy's tools etc... Or you will not be indexed nor have Page Rank.

Reminds me of a childs game. My toy is better than yours, wanna touch it, wanna play with(no no clean your minds now) Or you have dirty hands you can touch it, or you pick your nose you cant touch it. You know something along those lines..........

 

The problem is, people are selling advertising on their sites so that they can earn from them. Alot of sites on the web make their money from selling advertising. This is what the internet is mainly used for and what makes the internet economy to go around is by selling advertising on your site.

The people that buy the advertising on your site could be buying it for traffic gain or PR gain. But if they are buying it for PR gain then I don't think it is the sites fault, but the person that is buying it. All the site that is selling advertising is doing is offering a service just like what Adwords is doing, selling advertising on their site.

Does anybody know what exactly will be happening. Will they just count the paid links less or will they actually penalize the sites buying them or selling them?

 

It is not Google's job to tell us what we can and cannot do with our websites as far as this one goes. The whole linking to each other came before Google... it's why they decided to use links as a ranking factor in the first place.

-Michael

 

What another sh@t idea Google think there so it same with Matt Cutts, giving out stuff as a marketing trick using Matt to make people think that he is god so Google get more worshipers.

When is every one going to realize that Matt is a knob and Google are as well, 100's of people getting sucked in by Google fru Matt.


I have some thoughts on this Matt Cutts

1. I think he doesn't work for Google and he is sad pretending he does.
2. He says he can only give info out that Google let him, meaning info that will get webmasters more hooked and give him info
3. Its a big marketing scam from Google using Matt Cutts to run it and he doesn't even no.
4. Matt Cutts think he works for god


O by the way I work for Google come to my site and i will give you lots of trade secrets to keep you all coming back and licking my ars pm for website lol

 

IMO - Google uses Cutt and it appears he doesnt mind. Since he is in and out of everyone's forums. No not like a spy. They just use him. And I am sure they will dump his bhind sooner or later. All Monopolizing companies need a scapegoat and Cutt is it.

Google says Matt Cutt is a living legend and a Guru and that he will convince the masses to turn on on each other. I guess Matt Cutt likes to be used. Some business people just like that kind of stuff. Self importance. And quite possibly Google wants us to either think Cutt is a legend or an ego maniac that has some potion or power to convince the masses to bow down and praise the almighty Google Gods. That Google is the ultimate power and top dog in SE's.

They may be #1 atm. Yahoo is in a close second. But I do know that Microsoft and another company is helping in an antitrust lawsuit against Google. So I am sure they will have a humbling moment soon.

I just see more action with the talk when it comes to matters like this. And the name that comes to mind is Shoemoney.

 

... I'd add to that ... and has been encouraged by Google - this is a situation of Googles making. If Googles PR algo wasn't so skewed toward links between sites, then link exchanges and link sales wouldn't take place to anything like the degree that they do.

This situation is of Googles making and they should be careful how they proceed from here...

 

"Matt Cutt is a living legend and a Guru" lol he works for google that is top at the mo and he knows how they work fully so he is nothing without them

MSN will be bigger than google one day well windows live

 

I know this. I guess I just didnt make my point clear enough. Google used Cutt to influence everyone that follows his blog. To push all his readers to "snitch" in some form or fashion. Just a used piece of meat. Well a well paid used piece of meat. I could be wrong. But was Cutt lead to believe in his blog post that he was doing all webmasters who want to be Google indexed to be for warned of Googles "evil" or not so "evil" intentions.

A Google media blitz at its best. Knowing many will do a hype about such an issue. Especially during what many webmasters believe is another or quite possibly a Google PR update.

Media blitz at its best. Wouldnt one say. To put a spin on things. If Google is doing something to tweak their algo. This probably would be the best time to do it. In a time many webmasters are guesstimating another Google PR update. And what better person to do it with but with Cutt's blog. To scare many webmasters not to sell text links, to get it under control. Because Google sees the manipulation to be indexed in their SE. I know that has been suggested in many places already.

Media blitz in addition to use their adwords/adsense programs. Question is what if people do not want to use their webmaster tools to be indexed better in their SE. Those people must suffer and not be seen. Because they are not in the "in" crowd. Sounds like Google knows it is popular. And is using their popular status to get rid of what they consider the "losers", even if the "losers" do not harm their popular status. Meaning those who do not do any sort of "red, white and or black" hat tricks. Their just moving along using link exchanges, blog posting, natural linking etc. And doing it without the assistance of any of Google's webmaster tools or "snitching" links.

 

How are they going to differentiate between a paid link and a unpaid link?

 

The "snitching link" that was provided in Cutt's blog. You have to provide the link/proof to the paid link is one way to prove it.

 

even I got this report by mail.
But I think only webmaster search about links and pagerank and a average google users definitely does not know about pagerank or algorithm involved behind buying links.

 

I dont think this discussion needs to degrade into some personal attack on Cutts, I think he is trying to objectively create a better search experience for users (as opposed to webmasters).

That being said, I also think its positive that he shares this info and obviously he (and Google) is getting the message that this is going to anger MANY MANY people.

Buying advertising is one of the primary revenue sources of the internet. Its right up there with porn and viagra. There is no reason to devalue a link paid for with cash as opposed to paid for with some other value (like link trading).

At any rate what is this really going to accomplish, instead of paying a site directly for a link, a webmaster would now pay for good content in hopes to create link bait and generate non-paid links?

Lets say I have $3000 to spend in two months. How should I invest this money - instead of buying direct links on some high traffic sites I pay writers to write up 20 or 30 pages of great content and then ask people to link to it.

Whats the difference? Even if google where to somehow come up with some way to change the valuation of a link that they deemed "paid" - this is not going to help anything in the long run. They will have to assume that atrition will naturally remove the links to crappy sites and people with high-traffic/high-pr sites will be smart enough to only sell links to relevant/related sites.

That is what they should be pushing, not the elimination of link sales - lots of sites make ALL of there revenue from link sales - there is nothing wrong with that and it shouldnt be punished.

 

Very true and correct, i see where your coming from.

 

lol see lpstong there is one he has brainwashed

 

I object to the word objectively. The comments here are not personal. It´s about Google, the business and how it´s being run vs. how it is being portrayed. Whether I have been employeed or been running my own business, being objective in a competitive world while representing your company is an art me or anyone I know have yet to master. So yes, this is brainwashing at its worst.